Society – The Emergent Foolhttp://emergentfool.com
...explorations in complex adaptive systems...Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:50:12 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.19022881The Age of Radical Transparencyhttp://emergentfool.com/2010/12/09/the-age-of-radical-transparency/
http://emergentfool.com/2010/12/09/the-age-of-radical-transparency/#commentsThu, 09 Dec 2010 18:15:36 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=3267On Tuesday I went on Annie Duke’s internet TV show to talk with her and Jason Calacanis about Wikileaks and what the implications are for the future of privacy. I made some radical claims:

Privacy is dead: it’s only a matter of time now before we all have to face this eventuality.

In a radically transparent society, personal willingness to share everything is a source of power/wealth; unwillingness is a personal liability.

In a world with strong privacy rights, the exact opposite is true.

We’re all better off in a radically transparent world than one with strong privacy rights; this is true whether you look at the individual, the corporation, or the sovereign nation.

Worse than both extremes is where we are now, in transition, where some have privacy and others don’t.

Those who insist on having privacy will have to pay an increasing price for it; and because of #5, this is a good thing.

I just saw the most important talk I have seen in 300+ TED, Pop!Tech, etc talks that I’ve watched. And at the risk of hyperbole, I will say that the worst case scenario is that Daniel Nocera simply wins a Nobel Prize (and yes, I’m willing to bet at even odds that it happens in under 10 years from today). But if the system is able to scale through replication, it will be at least as important as penicillin in terms of ending human suffering and will have a bigger impact on the world as a whole. Here’s why:

Input: Water (clean, saltwater or dirty water)

Outputs: Electricity + Pure drinkable water

By products: nothing (other than what was in the water)

Resources required to assemble: all abundant and most have substitutes

Knowledge required to assemble: simple

Cost to assemble: relativelycheap

Essentially what Nocera has done is reverse engineered and re-created a super-simplified photosynthesis process. It’s …

I just saw the most important talk I have seen in 300+ TED, Pop!Tech, etc talks that I’ve watched. And at the risk of hyperbole, I will say that the worst case scenario is that Daniel Nocera simply wins a Nobel Prize (and yes, I’m willing to bet at even odds that it happens in under 10 years from today). But if the system is able to scale through replication, it will be at least as important as penicillin in terms of ending human suffering and will have a bigger impact on the world as a whole. Here’s why:

Input: Water (clean, saltwater or dirty water)

Outputs: Electricity + Pure drinkable water

By products: nothing (other than what was in the water)

Resources required to assemble: all abundant and most have substitutes

Knowledge required to assemble: simple

Cost to assemble: relativelycheap

Essentially what Nocera has done is reverse engineered and re-created a super-simplified photosynthesis process. It’s a closed loop (i.e. autocatalytic) so it’s actually more efficient to run his reactor on a fixed amount of pure water. But if you want you can use a flow of new water (say, parasite infested water) and as a side effect you get clean water out; all you have to do is have a way to dispose of the impurities that get separated. You could do that manually if necessary, but once you have energy, that becomes easier and may be automated.

Here’s why I’m really excited. The system is so simple that it can be built and maintained locally by the bottom billion, for the bottom billion, without the need for an electricity grid. Sounds like a micro-franchise model that could be taught at places like Barefoot College and could simultaneously create economic development and solve the world’s biggest humanitarian problem, both as a side effect.

And it can be purchased for home use by the rest of us taking our homes off the grid, paying for itself and becoming cash flow positive at some point. Same for businesses. What about portable energy, like for cars? Well, if you have a surplus of energy and water, you can charge hydrogen fuel cells. Or you can spin up flywheels, store electricity in lithium ion batteries, etc.

The biggest risks I can see are twofold:

There crops up some collateral effects of running the system indefinitely that emerge over time and at great scale (e.g. some trace byproducts which were too subtle to notice get concentrated to the point of becoming toxic).

The patent on the invention creates a roadblock to replicating the system across the globe.

The reason I’m willing to wager on the Nobel Prize is that I don’t think these risks would sink that ship. I think it’s worthy of a Nobel in one of the sciences already. While those can take decades to be awarded, I am comfortable about the 10 year mark because as we all know, the Nobel Peace Prize is winnable in 10 months.

Are others as excited about this as I am yet? Here’s a clue: when the president of MIT learned about Nocera’s invention she called just one person to bring it to the world, someone she thought could understand just how big it is and someone who could properly shepherd it and nurture it. He’s a venture capitalist who at one point had been a world-changing inventor himself. His name is Bob Metcalf, and he invented ethernet, the communication transport mechanism of the Internet.

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/23/daniel-noceras-gift/feed/52323Switching Government Service Providershttp://emergentfool.com/2009/10/21/switching-government-service-providers/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/21/switching-government-service-providers/#commentsWed, 21 Oct 2009 21:46:09 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=2300Ever wish you could reinvent the entire systems of government you live under without starting a costly war, revolution or having to win an election? No? Well, Patri Friedman has (wondered, that is). And so has a growing number of seasteaders, ordinary folks (and the occasional PayPal billionaire). Or to be more precise, as Patri explained at this year’s Idea Project confab [sign up now for next year, it may sell out quick!] they believe we should at least get to choose from some reasonable options. Currently your choices are some form of democracy, autocracy, or theocracy. And switching costs are high.

What if you wanted to start your own sovereign nation in a tucked away corner of earth somewhere? Problem is, every piece of land more than a few feet above sea level is already claimed by governments, private individuals or commercial interests. Enter, the high seas. Turns out there’s nothing stopping you from going out to international waters, building a platform, giant …

]]>Ever wish you could reinvent the entire systems of government you live under without starting a costly war, revolution or having to win an election? No? Well, Patri Friedman has (wondered, that is). And so has a growing number of seasteaders, ordinary folks (and the occasional PayPal billionaire). Or to be more precise, as Patri explained at this year’s Idea Project confab [sign up now for next year, it may sell out quick!] they believe we should at least get to choose from some reasonable options. Currently your choices are some form of democracy, autocracy, or theocracy. And switching costs are high.

What if you wanted to start your own sovereign nation in a tucked away corner of earth somewhere? Problem is, every piece of land more than a few feet above sea level is already claimed by governments, private individuals or commercial interests. Enter, the high seas. Turns out there’s nothing stopping you from going out to international waters, building a platform, giant boat or floating something-or-other and starting over with government, completely from first principles. Patri and Seastesd.org are committed to helping you do just that. And before you go assuming that the best form for your utopian flotilla must be some form of democracy (social or otherwise), consider all the unsolvable problems that face even your very favorite “government service provider” today.

So with that in mind, I’ve invented a new form of government that I’m putting in the public domain for any would-be seasteaders, guerilla factions or velvet revolutionaries to use as they see fit. Don’t thank me now, just send postcards from time to time.

•

Valuestan

“Having a nice life… Wish you were here!”

•

Principle 1: Values First

Rather than assert that there are such things as Inalienable Rights (or even Rights at all), recognize that there exist a set of Shared Values which can be explicitly stated. It is the Shared Value Statement (SVS) around which the State is organized.

To be a Citizen you must uphold and abide by the SVS. You may renounce Citizenship at any time.

The SVS may be amended (process TBD by founders; process subject to amendment by Citizens). It is understood that any amendment is likely to turn some Citizens into non-Citizens.

Any non-Citizen who is visiting or residing in the State is to be treated — and act — AS IF they were a Citizen.

It’s clear that Values are soft, not hard like Rights. And that any particular set of Values will, to a greater or lesser extent, conflict. The SVS is an unordered finite set. Relative significance of Values is unspecified by the SVS and can only be known by inference from practical implementation via Principles 2 and 3.

It is up to the Citizenship to determine what values belong in their SVS. Some sets of values will be inherently more stable than others, and some are simply not viable. But it is a category error to suggest that some SVSs or states are more moral than others. Morality is internal to the State and relative to Shared Values.

. . .

Principle 2: Positive Incentives Before Laws

Where possible, formal positive incentives (economic, social and otherwise) will be used to shape individual action.

Where such incentives are impractical or undesirable, formal laws may be created.

Laws trump incentives and should be used sparingly.

The entire set of formal incentives and laws (i.e. the Formal Code) is meant to embody and prioritize the SVS.

How the FC is arrived at, amended and implemented will vary from state to state, and is to be in accordance with the SVS. If Democracy is part of the SVS you would presume to see some form of voting mechanism. If Democracy is not on the SVS but Consensus is, you might expect the FC to be determined by a jury-like process. And so on.

. . .

Principle 3: Practical Wisdom

It is recognized that Principles 1 and 2 are not enough by themselves to create a good society. To wit: our loss of moral wisdom.

Therefore, it is the Responsibility…

…of each Citizen to be a moral exemplar always and embody practical wisdom

…of the State to celebrate moral heroes and create a culture of moral action

. . .

Principle 4: Non-Human Agents

It is recognized by the State that there are non-human agents that exist in the world, some of which exist in the State, and that they do not necessarily have the same motivations or moral capacity as humans.

Non-human agents are good at responding to incentives, but not good at responding to laws or moral intuition. The proper treatment of non-human agents — including and especially the State itself — is recognized as important, especially as it pertains to the legal system.

The treatment of non-human agents as Citizens in Fact may be a threat to a good society. For instance:

Should Corporations be treated as Persons (as they are in the U.S. legal system for many purposes) ?

Should the State or local governments be party to lawsuits?

Should there be a para-governmental system designed to protect humans inside the State? the State itself? the SVS? humans not in the State? humanity as a whole?

What should be done about non-human agents which threaten the State from (at least partially) inside (e.g. military-industrial complex) ?

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/21/switching-government-service-providers/feed/62300If You Had A Billion Dollars…http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/01/if-you-had-a-billion-dollars/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/09/01/if-you-had-a-billion-dollars/#commentsWed, 02 Sep 2009 01:27:09 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=2109If you had a billion dollars to make the world a better place, how would you spend it?…

The District, New York and Los Angeles are on track for fewer killings this year than in any other year in at least four decades. Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other cities are also seeing notable reductions in homicides.

While it’s probably true that police deserve a lot of credit, it helps to remember that violence is a virus and it spreads from person to person. The more violence people see around them, the more violence that breeds. And the converse is also true. The exogenous factors are hard to suss out, but my suspicion is that the general rise in wealth and well-being in the world is the main factor. This is consistent with the counterintuitive but real fact that violence has been in decline for centuries and we currently live in the most peaceful time ever.

The District, New York and Los Angeles are on track for fewer killings this year than in any other year in at least four decades. Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other cities are also seeing notable reductions in homicides.

While it’s probably true that police deserve a lot of credit, it helps to remember that violence is a virus and it spreads from person to person. The more violence people see around them, the more violence that breeds. And the converse is also true. The exogenous factors are hard to suss out, but my suspicion is that the general rise in wealth and well-being in the world is the main factor. This is consistent with the counterintuitive but real fact that violence has been in decline for centuries and we currently live in the most peaceful time ever.

Kevin points out:

I often mention the availability bias when quoting statistics on crime. If you ask people, they’ll say crime has gotten worse–IMO because media has become consistently better at shoving stories of violence into our brains. But the statistics say otherwise.

This is especially poignant when you talk about child abduction by strangers. People think this is a much worse problem (and why you don’t see kids playing in their neighborhoods). But I believe the statistics show the incidence is not any different than it was when we were growing up.

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/07/25/violence-on-the-decline/feed/31852The Diamond Rulehttp://emergentfool.com/2009/07/14/the-diamond-rule/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/07/14/the-diamond-rule/#commentsWed, 15 Jul 2009 03:26:22 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=1788We all know the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. TED Prize Wish winner, Karen Armstrong, even laudably proposed that a Charter for Compassion based on the observation that all three Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) have the Golden Rule at their core.

I do believe that if we all followed the Golden Rule as the basis for how we treat one another the world would be a better place. But I also think there is a a more fundamental rule, call it the Diamond Rule, which is even better:

Treat others as you believe they would want you to treat them, if they knew everything that you did.

The difference is subtle, and may not practically speaking yield different action that often. But when it does, the difference can be significant.…

]]>We all know the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. TED Prize Wish winner, Karen Armstrong, even laudably proposed that a Charter for Compassion based on the observation that all three Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) have the Golden Rule at their core.

I do believe that if we all followed the Golden Rule as the basis for how we treat one another the world would be a better place. But I also think there is a a more fundamental rule, call it the Diamond Rule, which is even better:

Treat others as you believe they would want you to treat them, if they knew everything that you did.

The difference is subtle, and may not practically speaking yield different action that often. But when it does, the difference can be significant.

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/07/14/the-diamond-rule/feed/121788Paying Women to Not Get Pregnanthttp://emergentfool.com/2009/06/09/paying-women-to-not-get-pregnant/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/06/09/paying-women-to-not-get-pregnant/#commentsTue, 09 Jun 2009 22:32:07 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=1698What’s fascinating to me about this is not that it works so well and or that there might actually be support in the Obama administration for doing it on a national scale, but rather that there has not been a backlash against it yet. What are the odds that something like this will actually get implemented? Is it actually a good thing?

]]>What’s fascinating to me about this is not that it works so well and or that there might actually be support in the Obama administration for doing it on a national scale, but rather that there has not been a backlash against it yet. What are the odds that something like this will actually get implemented? Is it actually a good thing?

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/06/09/paying-women-to-not-get-pregnant/feed/91698The Good, The Bad & The Uglyhttp://emergentfool.com/2009/04/23/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/23/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/#commentsThu, 23 Apr 2009 20:42:55 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=1405A few articles on the economy that were sent my way recently.

“The era of transition that we are entering will be disruptive—but it may bring a world where markets are servants, not masters.” I urge you to read this entire article, and leave your ideological biases at the door. Despite the title, this is no polemic. Here’s the punchline:

Contemporary biology and social science has confirmed just how much we are social animals—dependent on others for our happiness, our self-respect, our worth and even our life. There is no inherent contradiction between capitalism and community. But we have learned that these connections are not automatic: they have to be cultivated and rewarded, and societies that invest large proportions of their surpluses on advertising to persuade people that individual consumption is the best route to happiness end up paying a high price.

“The era of transition that we are entering will be disruptive—but it may bring a world where markets are servants, not masters.” I urge you to read this entire article, and leave your ideological biases at the door. Despite the title, this is no polemic. Here’s the punchline:

Contemporary biology and social science has confirmed just how much we are social animals—dependent on others for our happiness, our self-respect, our worth and even our life. There is no inherent contradiction between capitalism and community. But we have learned that these connections are not automatic: they have to be cultivated and rewarded, and societies that invest large proportions of their surpluses on advertising to persuade people that individual consumption is the best route to happiness end up paying a high price.

Here are some reality checks for the Left:

“‘philanthrocapitalism,’ the idea that the rich can save the world, may not survive the crisis

“Propping up failing industries is… a risky policy.”

“If another great accommodation is on its way, this one will be shaped by the triple pressures of ecology, globalisation and demographics. Forecasting in detail how these might play out is pointless and, as always, there are as many malign possibilities as benign ones, from revived militarism and autarchy to stigmatisation of minorities and accelerated ecological collapse.”

“Another intriguing part of this story is the growth of capital in the hands of trusts and charities, which now face the dilemma of whether to use their substantial assets (£50bn in Britain) not just to deliver an annual dividend but also to reflect their values. Bill Gates found himself at the sharp end of this dilemma when critics pointed out that the vast assets of his foundation were often invested in ways that ran counter to what it was seeking to achieve through its spending.”

“Obama should be ideally suited to offering a new vision, yet has surrounded himself with champions of the very system that now appears to be crumbling.”

And here are some for the Right:

“40 per cent of the investment in Silicon Valley came from government”

“Daniel Bell… [argued] that capitalism would erode the traditional norms on which it rests—willingness to work hard, to pass on legacies to children, to avoid excessive hedonism. Japan in the 1990s was a good case in point—its slacker teenagers rejecting their parents’ work ethic that had driven the economic miracle. “

“But the new technologies—from high speed networks to new energy systems, low carbon factories to open source software and genetic medicine—have a connecting theme: each potentially remakes capitalism more clearly as a servant rather than a master, whether in the world of money, work, everyday life or the state.”

“It’s an irony that so many of the measures taken to deal with the immediate impact of the recession, like VAT cuts and fiscal stimulus packages, point in the opposite direction to what’s needed long term. But there are already strong movements to restrain the excesses of mass consumerism….”

“Reinforcing these trends are shifts in the balance of the economy away from products and services, towards a ‘support economy’ based on relationships and care….”

“Knowledge too is dividing between capitalist models and cooperative alternatives…. The creative commons approach is gaining ground in culture as an alternative to traditional copyright and Wikipedia has become an unlikely symbol of post-capitalism.”

“…there has been a long-term trend towards more people wanting work to be an end as well as a means, a source of fulfilment as well as earnings.”

“Governments may also be drawn further into financial services…. [Denmark and Singapore] have created personal budget accounts for citizens, and it’s not hard to imagine some offering services where people can borrow money for a period of retraining, parental leave or unemployment, and then repay through the tax system over 20 or 30 years, or through a charge on homes, with much lower transaction costs than the banks.” [ sounds familiar :-) ]

“The building societies [I assume this means “developing economies” in American lingo?] that didn’t privatise have survived far better than those that did. Charities tend to survive recessions better than conventional businesses and Britain’s 55,000 or so social enterprises may bounce back faster than firms without a social mission.”

What I like best about Mulgan’s essay is the nuanced long-term historical view:

In this essay I look at what capitalism might become on the other side of the slump. I predict neither resurgence nor collapse. Instead I suggest an analogy with other systems that once seemed equally immutable. In the early decades of the 19th century the monarchies of Europe appeared to have seen off their revolutionary challengers, whose dreams were buried in the mud of Waterloo. Monarchs and emperors dominated the world and had proven extraordinarily adaptable. Just like the advocates of capitalism today, their supporters then could plausibly argue that monarchies were rooted in nature. Then it was hierarchy which was natural; today it is individual acquisitiveness. Then it was mass democracy which had been experimented with and shown to fail. Today it is socialism that is seen in the same light, as a well-intentioned experiment that failed because it was at odds with human nature.

and

In Perez’s account economic cycles begin with the emergence of new technologies and infrastructures that promise great wealth; these then fuel frenzies of speculative investment, with dramatic rises in stock and other prices. During these phases finance is in the ascendant and laissez faire policies become the norm. The booms are then followed by dramatic crashes, whether in 1797, 1847, 1893, 1929 or 2008. After these crashes, and periods of turmoil, the potential of the new technologies and infrastructures is eventually realised, but only once new institutions come into being which are better aligned with the characteristics of the new economy. Once that has happened, economies then go through surges of growth as well as social progress, like the belle époque or the postwar miracle.

When executives have a tough time meeting their performance goals, a growing number of companies are moving the goalposts for them….

Companies generally point to the economic downturn and argue that this year, missing the kind of performance targets used in the past does not result from poor management. It would be unfair to withhold pay from executives, in this view, because they may be doing a good job while circumstances beyond their control sabotage their efforts.

I encourage you to read Bhide’s articles linked above because they are actually quite good. From the Forbes article (emphases mine):

American industry–businesses in the real economy–long ago learned hard lessons in the virtues of focus. In the 1960s, the prevailing wisdom favored growth through diversification. Many benefits were cited. Besides synergistic cost reductions offered by sharing resources in functions such as manufacturing and marketing, executives of large diversified corporations allegedly could allocate capital more wisely than could external markets. In fact, the synergies often turned out to be illusory, and corporate executives out of touch. Super-allocators like Jack Welch and Warren Buffett were exceptions….

Predictably, taxpayers are footing much of the bill for the misadventures in diversification. Regulators, who looked the other way while bankers put the public’s deposits at risk and brought the nation’s economy to its knees, now have an opportunity to redeem themselves…. Instead, they are encouraging more diversification, hoping to bury, for instance, Merrill Lynch’s unknown liabilities into Bank of America’s impenetrable balance sheets, and–in spite of their past failures with the likes of Citicorp–welcoming the creation of more megabanks. This is rather like giving the addict in the ER more drugs. It may soothe the tremors, but it isn’t a long-term solution to the diversification debacle.

It’s important to notethat “diversification” in this context refers actually to consolidation, in other words, individual companies trying to do too many things and losing the efficiency that would have been present in the marketplace if these diverse interest remained independent.

In contrast to Bhide’s lucid argument, here’s Muller’s twisting of the same:

The diversification of investment, which was intended to reduce risk to institutional investors, ended up spreading risk more widely, as investors across the country and around the world found themselves holding mortgage-backed American securities of declining and indeterminate value. There was a belief in the financial sector that diversification of assets was a substitute for due diligence on each asset, so that if one bundled enough assets together, one didn’t have to know much about the assets themselves. The creation of securities based on a pool of diverse assets (mortgage loans, student loans, credit card receivables, etc.) meant that when markets declined radically, it became impossible to determine an accurate price for the security.

This is completely wrong. The issue wasn’t spreading risk more widely and the concomitant inability to accurately price securities. The issue was that the financial wizards forgot to check how correlated the underlying securities actually were, convinced themselves with over-simple models that there was no correlation, ignorantly applied leverage, and hence increased risk to everyone. There was no “spreading of risk” whatsoever.

Muller would have been better off just plagiarizing Bhide directly, that way he’d at least get the argument right.

]]>http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/23/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/feed/11405If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Editionhttp://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/
http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/16/if-rafe-were-in-charge-major-medical-edition/#commentsThu, 16 Apr 2009 18:23:14 +0000http://emergentfool.com/?p=1342Kevin started an interesting discussion that included a thoughtful proposal for the problem of major medical care costs risk mitigation. You should read that here before reading my proposal below.

Part 1: Major Medical Annuities. Federally mandated/funded (similar to SSI/Medicare), with a specific initial lifetime value that is the same for everyone. The concept is that you pick a number slightly bigger than the average expected lifetime major medical bill and set aside that pot of money for everyone individually. At some point (e.g. 65) you can choose to start drawing down from your pot as taxable income. Prior to then, the only way the fund can be used is for major medical expenses not covered by other insurance you may have. Such payments go directly to providers and are tax-exempt. When you die, any leftover amount gets transferred to the MMA accounts of your heirs (per your desired breakdown, or according to probate law in the absence of a will).

]]>Kevin started an interesting discussion that included a thoughtful proposal for the problem of major medical care costs risk mitigation. You should read that here before reading my proposal below.

Part 1: Major Medical Annuities. Federally mandated/funded (similar to SSI/Medicare), with a specific initial lifetime value that is the same for everyone. The concept is that you pick a number slightly bigger than the average expected lifetime major medical bill and set aside that pot of money for everyone individually. At some point (e.g. 65) you can choose to start drawing down from your pot as taxable income. Prior to then, the only way the fund can be used is for major medical expenses not covered by other insurance you may have. Such payments go directly to providers and are tax-exempt. When you die, any leftover amount gets transferred to the MMA accounts of your heirs (per your desired breakdown, or according to probate law in the absence of a will).

Part 2: MMA Collectives. If you deplete your MMA (for whatever reason) and have a major medical expense that is uncovered, we need to address this ahead of time and responsibly. One idea is to allow people to voluntarily form collectives or trusted circles: family and close friends who share your lifestyle, risk profile and philosophy and are willing to act as a secondary insurance policy for each other by essentially pooling their MMA pots. Collectives would be legal entities with group voting/responsibility, and once formed, individuals cannot leave or be forced out except by unanimous consent.

Part 3: Extraordinary Circumstances Fund. Let’s say you are a loner, no close family and no Collective. Or that you have a small Collective but it’s about to be bankrupt. The government sets aside an FDIC-like insurance fund as a final safety net. However, you don’t want to get into this situation; it will have a negative impact on your life-expectancy, quality of care, financial health, etc. Essentially your health care future goes into a sort of receivership, and you and your Collective are financially on the hook to pay back 100% of the money over time. Your entire estate and those of your Collective members are considered collateral, so you cannot escape scott free by dying :-) And there is strong social pressure from your Collective to make lifestyle, medical care and general financial choices to not land yourself in a precarious situation where you’d end up needing this fail-safe.

Yes, there will still be those destitute and alone who end up a drain on the ECF, but it seems like a smaller and fairer price to pay as a society than what currently exists and what has been proposed. The proposal has a high degree of personal autonomy/responsibility while bringing to bear social pressures similar to those that have been proven effective in micro-lending collectives. Rich individuals/Collectives can effectively shield money from taxes and grow their major medical funds beyond the initial lifetime value guaranteed to everyone. Thus, if I have the money and and am in a situation where it’s a moral dilemma whether to go to extraordinary lengths to keep me alive (or to cryogenically freeze me), I have the option. And for the destitute person, even as a left-leaning person, I would feel like society has borne its part of the responsibility for your survival and quality of life vis-a-vis major medical risk mitigation.